31 August 2010 :

A government-ordered audit of the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation found that the agency falsely reported blood evidence in dozens of cases, including three that ended in executions. The audit, released last week, found flawed laboratory work in the cases of death row inmates, including 3 who had been executed before the revelation came to light. The troubling findings come on the heels of studies by researchers at the Michigan State University school of law, the University of Colorado in Boulder and Northeastern University in Boston that show racial disparities in the trials and sentencing of death row inmates. The inquiry, ordered by Attorney General Roy Cooper, found that SBI agents improperly aided prosecutors for over a 16-year period, calling into question convictions in 269 criminal cases. The report listed three death penalty cases that resulted in executions. Although each of the executed defendants confessed to the crimes, such confessions are sometimes suspect and evidence withheld by the state might have at least led to a lesser sentence. Desmond Carter, who was executed in 2002, was represented by attorneys who were inexperienced and unqualified to handle his capital case. The attorneys never evaluated and challenged the SBI evidence, only assuming the evidence was true. Another impacted case was that of John Hardy Rose, who confessed to killing his neighbor. Ken Rose, his attorney (no relation), said there was doubt as to whether his crime was premeditated or impulsive. Rose said he believes previously undisclosed negative results of a test for blood could have been used to secure a life sentence or a second-degree murder conviction for his client, who was executed in 2001. The final executed defendant was Joseph Timothy Keel.  His lawyers are still exploring how the withheld evidence might have affected his case. Duane Deaver, a veteran SBI analyst who performed the work in five particularly troubling cases, has been suspended pending further investigation.  According to the audit, SBI lab reports omitted or overstated important information about test results that would have been favorable to the defense. The report blames the flaws on "poorly crafted policy, inattention to reporting methods which permitted too much analyst subjectivity; and ineffective management and oversight.”  The state Supreme Court ruled in 1992 that lab notes are evidence that should be made available to the defense. According to the report, however, “that did not happen for several reasons, including a mindset, led by a section chief, that the lab’s main customer was law enforcement.” North Carolina's News & Observer just completed a four-part investigative series into the SBI entitled "Agents' Secrets: Junk Science, Tainted Testimony at SBI."